NGO Says Patent Laws for Plants Hurt Biodiversity
The 65-year-old U.S. Plant Patent Act (PPA) has not succeeded
in carrying out its purported aims of encouraging plant
breeding or contributing to genetic diversity, according to a
recent report by the Rural Advancement Fund International
(RAFI). RAFI felt that an examination of the act was
necessary since developing countries are currently under
pressure from Northern governments and the World Trade
Organization (WTO) to adopt similar intellectual property
systems for plants. WTO requires member developing countries
(countries whose governments are signatories to the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) to adopt plant patent systems
by 2000; least developed member countries have until 2004.
The Plant Patent Act, enacted by U.S. Congress in 1930, is
the world's oldest intellectual property system designed for
patenting living things. It grants monopoly protection for 17
years to the "inventor" of new varieties of asexually
propagated plants -- primarily nuts, fruits and flowers. RAFI
states that the U.S. market for PPA patented crops is worth
more than US$16.9 billion per year. Since Southern countries
contain the vast majority of biodiversity in fruits, flowers
and ornamentals worldwide, adopting similar plant patenting
systems could have profound implications.
According to the report, early proponents of the Plant Patent
Act contended that it would provide impetus for plant
breeders to develop new and useful plant varieties. RAFI
states that, to the contrary, breeders using PPA have tended
to seek patents on increasingly minute variations within
species; patents have been granted on hundreds or even
thousands of varieties of a single species. Twelve species,
including rose, chrysanthemum, peach, dianthus and African
violet, account for more than 68% of PPA patents.
In addition, many of the "new" varieties awarded patents have
actually been traditional or naturally-occurring varieties
that were simply taken from developing countries. RAFI states
that 88 of the first 200 patents were issued for such pirated
plants. The report describes a recent case of plant theft in
which a U.S. breeder was granted a PPA patent over
"banisteriopsis caapi," a medicinal and hallucinogenic vine
bred and used by indigenous people for centuries across the
Amazon basin.
RAFI states that the main beneficiaries of the Plant Patent
Act have been a relatively small number of highly specialized
breeders, and that the number of breeders has actually
declined since the Act's inception. PPA breeders declined
from a post-World War II average of 16 per million U.S.
residents to six per million in 1994. In recent years,
multinational corporations have amassed a significant share
of the breeding and seed industries. Agrow World Crop
Protection News recently reported that Novartis (Ciba and
Sandoz) and Zeneca, both top pesticide companies worldwide,
are positioned to become top seed companies as well.
RAFI notes that compared to other plant patent systems PPA
does have some advantages as a model for developing
countries, such as an inexpensive application process that
does not require specialized technologies. Because protection
is granted on the basis of drawings and relatively simple
descriptions, it would be feasible for farming communities
and small breeding programs to meet description criteria. In
addition, it preserves farmers' rights to save and develop
planting material for their own purposes. PPA-style
legislation would also allow the South to cover major food
and export crops, such as potatoes, tea, coffee, coconut,
sweet potatoes, flowers and nut crops.
Nonetheless, these advantages would not necessarily serve
farmers in developing countries. RAFI points out that those
with money and power will seek to amend any intellectual
property system to strengthen their monopolies, even if the
original legislation is written with the intent of defending
farmers. In addition, rural farmers may simply lack time to
apply for patents and may not have adequate legal and
financial resources to defend their claims in international
patent disputes.
Source: Sixty-Five Years of the U.S. Plant Patent Act (PPA),
1995, RAFI Communique, Rural Advancement Foundation
International (RAFI).
Contact: RAFI, 71 Bank Street, Suite 504, Ottawa, ON, K1P
5N2, Canada; phone (613) 567-6880; fax (613) 567-6884; email
rafican@web.apc.org.
===========================================================
| Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) |
| |
| Phone:(415) 541-9140 Fax:(415) 541-9253 |
| Email: panna@panna.org http://www.panna.org/panna/|
| PANNA, 116 New Montgomery, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105 |
| |
|*To subscribe to PANUPS send email to MAJORDOMO@igc.apc.org|
| with the following text on one line: subscribe panups |
| To unsubscribe send the following: unsubscribe panups |
| |
|*For basic information about PANNA, send an email message |
| to panna-info@igc.apc.org |
===========================================================